|
|
Post by oskiaztec on Apr 21, 2014 15:02:50 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 15:26:48 GMT -8
To answer the question, even if we remain in the MWC and the MWC still requires X number of sports for membership, SDSU will never cut all non-revenue sports, nor will anyone else. Why? Title IX. Because of Title IX, SDSU will always give out at least 97 scholarships to women and none of their sports make a profit.
Although few of our peers are subject to the "substantial proportionality" prong of the Title IX test, even if they aren't, they're going to have to show either "continual expansion" of women's sports or that women are having their interests "fully accommodated." Any and all of those prongs will be violated by any substantial elimination of women's sports.
So what do I think is most likely? That conferences like the MWC will decide to allow member institutions to field only like a dozen teams and although football and men's basketball will remain, most of the rest of men's sports will be eliminated even if they cost only pennies to operate aside from the scholarships provided. To answer your question, I would be fine with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdgaucho on Apr 21, 2014 17:37:46 GMT -8
Just seems so wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Apr 21, 2014 17:44:28 GMT -8
I know it's recognized that tennis, lax and track are not revenue creators, but it would suck to see them go. I also think we lose most of our intelligent athletes if we lose the oly's as well. I had friends who ended up doing great things who are women's crew, water polo, tennis, track. I like to see that, all though if you asked why, I couldn't give you the most cogent of answers  ETA:Then again, I used to go to my friends events, so I guess I have some reason. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Apr 21, 2014 17:45:35 GMT -8
To answer the question, even if we remain in the MWC and the MWC still requires X number of sports for membership, SDSU will never cut all non-revenue sports, nor will anyone else. Why? Title IX. Because of Title IX, SDSU will always give out at least 97 scholarships to women and none of their sports make a profit. Although few of our peers are subject to the "substantial proportionality" prong of the Title IX test, even if they aren't, they're going to have to show either "continual expansion" of women's sports or that women are having their interests "fully accommodated." Any and all of those prongs will be violated by any substantial elimination of women's sports. So what do I think is most likely? That conferences like the MWC will decide to allow member institutions to field only like a dozen teams and although football and men's basketball will remain, most of the rest of men's sports will be eliminated even if they cost only pennies to operate aside from the scholarships provided. To answer your question, I would be fine with that. Thank you SGF, right on the money. People forget about Title IX, which is paramount, like it or not, that or all remaining men's sports are done. That would be a travesty for our community, we are missing too many as it is. In SoCal, not having Men's VB, Swim/Dive and water polo is a shame. |
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Apr 21, 2014 18:05:46 GMT -8
will be interesting to see what would happen to baseball - would MLB help out the colleges . Football is the driving force and pays for most on the "minor" sports . As usual in our system the rich or " Power 5 " get richer and will be able to control sports .
|
|
|
|
Post by lovedaaztecs on Apr 21, 2014 21:27:54 GMT -8
It will be very interesting what the future brings. Should college players be paid to play sports. It appears to be moving that way. Which will shrink the non revenue sports out of the mid major programs. There seems to be issue at SDSU now with players who are upset because they were pressured to play hurt. Now they aren't physically able to play at the next level. These types of issues will push the student Athletes to work together to form Athletic unions. And I agree that something does need to be done. Colleges make a considerable amount of money off of these kids. And if this comes about, there will have to be a huge change in the landscape of college sports. I think we are going to read about some issues with some football players that believe they have been adversely affecteted due to playing while injured. Thereby damaging their ability to play pro ball. Potential lawsuit in the next few years will forever change college sports forever.so forget about non revenue sports. All college sports are in trouble if the courts get involved. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Apr 22, 2014 5:29:08 GMT -8
There was a reporter on the air the other day . He felt the NCAA may go toward allowing players to get endorsement money , also having neutral medical staff ,who would have to clear a player before he can play
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 22, 2014 12:34:16 GMT -8
Football is the driving force and pays for most on the "minor" sports . That is not a true statement in regards to over 90% of schools. It sure isn't true at SDSU. Football receives a massive subsidy from both the school's general fund and from the students. |
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Apr 22, 2014 12:43:09 GMT -8
Believe many of the Power 5 schools are driven by football and they are going to be the controlling force .
|
|
|
|
Post by sandiegopete on Apr 22, 2014 15:58:01 GMT -8
People are not considering the full impact do the NLRB ruling finding that scholarship athletes are employees. First of all, if that ruling is to stand then each and every college athlete on scholarship will be covered by the FLSA. That means colleges will have to abide by wage and hour rules of the federal government. And since a requirement for scholarships is continued attendance at the college and to continue in school an athlete will be required to maintain a certain grade point average the ti,e spent in class and studying will count toward the 40 hour work week that precedes overtime pay.
Scholarship athletes will be able to file complaints with the EEOC for perceived discrimination.
In the past college athletes have been excluded from workers' compensation laws. The NLRB decision will most certainly result in findings that scholarship athletes are employees for the purposes of workers' compensation. In California that means lifetime medical treatment for injuries sustained while employed.
The costs of these changes will prohibit most universities from continuing athletic scholarships. Sure, the big revenue schools will continue for awhile but with most other schools dropping their sports to club level national interest in college sports will wane.
Some people have mentioned Title IX. Women's athletic scholarships will be impacted just as the men's are. Women on athletic scholarships will be considered employees. Students with partial scholarships will be considered part-time employees.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecsiggy on Apr 22, 2014 16:21:15 GMT -8
You are correct Pete. I didn't consider the full impact of the employee status. The writing is certainly on the wall that football at non-revenue generating schools will be a thing of the past. It will be a very sad day indeed and I don't see a way around it. Even IF SDSU joins one of the power conferences, I don't believe SDSU football has the ability to attract large enough crowds to cover the expenses/payroll for all of the athletes required under title IX. And that's a big if. I foresee SDSU (along with all of the CSU schools) becoming a basketball only school and a significant number of the athletic programs being dropped due to costs. It's going to be sad. I'm going to enjoy our Aztec football program while I can.
|
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Apr 23, 2014 12:43:11 GMT -8
Students with partial scholarships will be considered part-time employees. Actually under this logic students with partial scholarships wouldn't be part time employees because they would be required to work the same number of hours as full scholarship students. They just would be earning less per hour. That might trigger minimum wage problems. |
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Apr 23, 2014 13:44:12 GMT -8
If the NCAA decided to allow college players to receive endorsement money from public companies , that may open it up so some players could get money without colleges having to put out money . Does that mean Title IX ,would not be factor ?
|
|
|
|
Post by 94sdsu on Apr 23, 2014 15:06:51 GMT -8
SDSU football is toast unless we get into a P5 conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdgaucho on Apr 23, 2014 15:16:46 GMT -8
I'd hate to see baseball and other sports become casualties from all this.
|
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Apr 23, 2014 15:36:32 GMT -8
If the NCAA decided to allow college players to receive endorsement money from public companies , that may open it up so some players could get money without colleges having to put out money . Does that mean Title IX ,would not be factor ? Title IX would absolutely be a factor and CalNOW would be the destroyer for CSU schools with football. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 16:18:56 GMT -8
People are not considering the full impact do the NLRB ruling finding that scholarship athletes are employees. 1. First of all, if that ruling is to stand then each and every college athlete on scholarship will be covered by the FLSA. That means colleges will have to abide by wage and hour rules of the federal government. And since a requirement for scholarships is continued attendance at the college and to continue in school an athlete will be required to maintain a certain grade point average the ti,e spent in class and studying will count toward the 40 hour work week that precedes overtime pay. 2. Scholarship athletes will be able to file complaints with the EEOC for perceived discrimination. 3. In the past college athletes have been excluded from workers' compensation laws. The NLRB decision will most certainly result in findings that scholarship athletes are employees for the purposes of workers' compensation. In California that means lifetime medical treatment for injuries sustained while employed. 1. That's assuming the definition of "employee" under the NLRA is the same as under the FLSA and further assuming that if it is, the federal courts with authority over the FLSA would agree with the NLRB's interpretation of legislative intent. It also assumes that college employees would not be somehow found to be "exempt" employees as is the case with supervisors. 2. Discrimination based on demographic factors set forth in Title VII that is and I would be surprised to learn that they aren't already entitled to do that or that if they don't have such protection under Title VII that they have such protection under some other law. For example, California not only outlaws discrimination based on all the demographic factors set forth in Title VII, for also marital status, sexual orientation and a third factor which I can't recall just now. 3. Maybe, maybe not. After all, workers' compensation laws exist at the STATE, not federal, level. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 23, 2014 18:03:51 GMT -8
You are correct Pete. I didn't consider the full impact of the employee status. The writing is certainly on the wall that football at non-revenue generating schools will be a thing of the past. It will be a very sad day indeed and I don't see a way around it. Even IF SDSU joins one of the power conferences, I don't believe SDSU football has the ability to attract large enough crowds to cover the expenses/payroll for all of the athletes required under title IX. And that's a big if. I foresee SDSU (along with all of the CSU schools) becoming a basketball only school and a significant number of the athletic programs being dropped due to costs. It's going to be sad. I'm going to enjoy our Aztec football program while I can. What you envision is just what frightens me. There are several aspects of this problem. The most important is cost. If every college or university had 150 or 200 million dollars a year to spend on men's and women's sports, we would all be happy. Hell, there might even be NCAA fencing and cricket programs at every school, not to mention lacrosse, wrestling, volleyball, swimming, etc. The problem is that most schools lose lots of money on intercollegiate athleltics. This is not 1890, when teams consisted of amateur student-athletes who decided to get togeather to challenge a few nearby schools to a game or two. Sports, especially football and basketball, are not just big businesses, they are in fact huge businesses. But many, likely most, schools just can't afford the price of admission. No doubt the sports programs at a majority of the lesser schools are barely hanging on financially. Schools such as, for example, Idaho State, San Jose State, Hofstra, Eastern Michigan, etc., have no business even trying to compete in the same division with the likes of Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Penn State, and USC. When football is included, they may well not be in their right minds even competing in the low level conferences (even the FCS for football, and when was the last time that any school from the lowest rated BB conferences even made it to the round of 32, much less the Sweet Sixteen?). If all the changes discussed in the linked piece become fact, how in heaven's name is SDSU going to be able to maintain its sports teams? And we are probably better off than scores of schools (that includes schools which already lack a FB program), but probably not well enough off to be able to continue indefinitely. What do you think our AD would say if you told him that we would have to be paying every member of every team, men's and women's, a couple of thousand dollars a year - - - or more - - - as payment for services rendered? I suggest you all buy a copy of Tom Ables book on Aztec football. Someday we may all have only memories of the sport being played on the Mesa. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 23, 2014 18:11:38 GMT -8
One other thing might be of interest here. Some day, some school, more likely a bunch of them, is going to say, "Sorry, we can no longer afford to have an intercollegiate sports program. All men's and women's teams are hereby ended. We will be glad to have club teams, however, so long as the participants pay for their equipment, and other expenses." Those who support Title IX most ardently, and especially fans of the Cal-NOW decree, will scream like stuck pigs over the horror of no more women's scholarships. But, you know what, all their screaming and yelling and threats will be useless if the schools involved have no more money to spend on sports.
As it is, I would imagine that a healthy majority of professors at most schools think sports are getting way too much money, money that should be spent on new classrooms, better dorms, new teaching hires, adequate classroom supplies and equipment.
After all, SDSU and all other NCAA members are places dedicated to education, aren't they? Or am I missing something here?
AzWm
|
|
